My wife's favourite. She eventually wore me down into giving it a go (I gave up arguing after finding out Kafka was a fan) and I loved it. It's really hard to follow who everyone is until you get your head around the patronymics, though. For some reason if you alternate between referring to someone by their surname and their father's first name according to no pattern I can discern it completely confuses my ageing brain.

James

OK, the truth is I only made it half way through it. I found certain parts very profound, but most of it I thought was unnecessarily laborious. It would take fifty pages to get to something that was actually philosophical or thought provoking. The story of the horse that was beaten to death was very powerful. And there were some great quotes here and there. But too much wasted in between. I made it half way through because the good parts were great. But the good parts were too sparse and the tedious parts too long. And I really hated to give up on it, because it's not a book you can put aside for a while and then pick back up. Too many characters and names to remember.

I was disappointed, because I absolutely loved every page of The Brothers Karamazov.

Selam

« Last Edit: October 16, 2012, 05:37:16 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus »

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

I've really been enjoying it. In fact, when I'm done with it (probably tonight) I'm gonna reread it so I can do a book review of it (I didn't take notes the first time through).

Some Finns consider archbishop Paul to be a Saint. There are some stories him glowing with uncreated light and appearing after his death. He's not canonized though and I don't think he will be either in the near future.

Regarding Dostoevsky, I had the exact opposite reaction. I loved Crime and Punishment, but found The Brothers K unbearably dull. Even when I read just the excerpt of the Grand Inquisitor section I found it boring.

Regarding Dostoevsky, I had the exact opposite reaction. I loved Crime and Punishment, but found The Brothers K unbearably dull. Even when I read just the excerpt of the Grand Inquisitor section I found it boring.

That's very surprising. I think the Bros K is exhaustive in everything Dost wanted to say, and although it sprawls a bit, I felt the direction was better than C&P

Speaking of that, it was really exciting in the beginning with the murder, the build up was fantastic and what happened directly after that was a page turner...but then it turned into this drawn out, goes nowhere until near the end. I loved the scene of the horse getting beat to death, but I had to force myself to get through the rest of the book.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

“Nothing is admitted,” Razumihin interrupted with heat. “I am not wrong. I’ll show you their pamphlets. Everything with them is ‘the influence of environment,’ and nothing else. Their favourite phrase! From which it follows that, if society is normally organised, all crime will cease at once, since there will be nothing to protest against and all men will become righteous in one instant. Human nature is not taken into account, it is excluded, it’s not supposed to exist! They don’t recognise that humanity, developing by a historical living process, will become at last a normal society, but they believe that a social system that has come out of some mathematical brain is going to organise all humanity at once and make it just and sinless in an instant, quicker than any living process! That’s why they instinctively dislike history, ‘nothing but ugliness and stupidity in it,’ and they explain it all as stupidity! That’s why they so dislike the living process of life; they don’t and a living soul! The living soul demands life, the soul won’t obey the rules of mechanics, the soul is an object of suspicion, the soul is retrograde! But what they want though it smells of death and can be made of india-rubber, at least is not alive, has no will, is servile and won’t revolt! And it comes in the end to their reducing everything to the building of walls and the planning of rooms and passages in a phalanstery! The phalanstery is ready, indeed, but your human nature is not ready for the phalanstery—it wants life, it hasn’t completed its vital process, it’s too soon for the graveyard! You can’t skip over nature by logic. Logic presupposes three possibilities, but there are millions! Cut away a million, and reduce it all to the question of comfort! That’s the easiest solution of the problem! It’s seductively clear and you mustn’t think about it. That’s the great thing, you mustn’t think! The whole secret of life in two pages of print!”http://www.bartleby.com/318/35.html

C&P

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

Hey Papist, are you aware of a book of an Orthodox author going through Aquinas' work? I was just curious if there was such a thing.

From what I understand, during the 20th century there were quite a few Eastern Orthodox theologians who were quite critical of Aquinas. But I don't know of any specific works.

There is definitely a knee-jerk condemnation of anything "scholastic", the same tendency that bemoans a "Western captivity" and throws a tantrum when an icon has a vanishing point; basically, we're so mystical and spooky and therefore have no need for organizing our theology in a systematic way. This is a polemically fabricated "Eastern Orthodoxy" that is not representative of the full tradition of the Church.

In the time of Aquinas and the centuries that followed such an attitude was not to be found.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2012, 03:24:01 PM by Iconodule »

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

I have just finished "Too Much Magic" by James Howard Kunstler and I'm currently reading Fr. John Meyendorff's book, "The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church".

I'm debating what to start after Fr. John's book. I recently bought Church History by Eusebius and On the Divine Images by St. John of Damascus. Or I could move to another non-Orthodox work.

The current books on my shelf that I have yet to read:

Tom Clancy's Red RabbitStar Wars The Old Republic: Deceived by Paul S. KempStar Wars Red Harvest by Joe SchreiberThe Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor DostoevskyThe Grand Inquisitor by Fyodor DostoevskyThe City in the Greek & Roman World by E.J. OwensBeyond Oil by Kenneth S. DeffeyesMedieval Russia 980-1584 by Janet MartinCeltic Christianity by Timothy JoyceA Short History of Byzantium by John Julius Norwich1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the clash of Islam and the West by Roger CrowleyRussia and the Russians by Geoffrey HoskingHistory of Urban Form before the Industrial Revolution by A.E.J. MorrisThree Treatises on the Divine Images by St. John of DamascusChurch History by Eusebius

I will also say that I've read far more now that I've graduated than I did in college. Here is a list of the books I've read since May (graduation):

The Long Emergency by James Howard KunstlerToo Much Magic by James Howard KunstlerRussia and the Golden Horde by Charles HalperinA Better Place to Live by Philip LangdonThe Geography of Nowhere by James Howard KunstlerLost to the West by Lars BrownworthThe Fall of Constantinople: 1453 by Steven Runciman

Oh and I should also add For the Life of the World by Fr. Alexander Schmemann to my "To Read" list.

I'm also reading (periodically because I have to read it closely) The Spiritual Life by St Theophan the Recluse.

Fwiw, of the books I've read in that list, Church History by Eusebius was the one I found most interesting.

WHy?

Probably some of it has to do with it being more story telling in parts, not dry history/dialogue/etc. It was also interesting having a peek at what some of the earlier Christians whose writings are no longer extant believed and wrote about.

I've never been non-religious but for me an idea of being non-religious arouses some kind of feeling of anguish, emptiness and purposelessness. What should I read if I wanted to read something related to that kind of theme? Sarte? Camus? Hemingway?

I've never been non-religious but for me an idea of being non-religious arouses some kind of feeling of anguish, emptiness and purposelessness. What should I read if I wanted to read something related to that kind of theme? Sarte? Camus? Hemingway?

HP Lovecraft

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

I've never been non-religious but for me an idea of being non-religious arouses some kind of feeling of anguish, emptiness and purposelessness. What should I read if I wanted to read something related to that kind of theme? Sarte? Camus? Hemingway?

HP Lovecraft

LOL. I like Lovecraft but I'm looking for something little different. Maybe something little more this wordly and little less mythic.

I've never been non-religious but for me an idea of being non-religious arouses some kind of feeling of anguish, emptiness and purposelessness. What should I read if I wanted to read something related to that kind of theme? Sarte? Camus? Hemingway?

Older sci-fi: Arthur Clarke, Robert Heinlein, a good short story collection...

Logged

He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I've never been non-religious but for me an idea of being non-religious arouses some kind of feeling of anguish, emptiness and purposelessness. What should I read if I wanted to read something related to that kind of theme? Sarte? Camus? Hemingway?

HP Lovecraft

LOL. I like Lovecraft but I'm looking for something little different. Maybe something little more this wordly and little less mythic.

Another one I almost forgot about- Les Chants de Maldoror by Lautreamont. It's completely unique and mindbending.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

In the time of Aquinas and the centuries that followed such an attitude was not to be found.

Really? All of the books about the period that I have read have said to the contrary. Aquinas was translated into Greek and a number of Eastern theologians liked him but they were looked down on for it. Many of these same types that liked Aquinas joined the Latin Church soon after the Council of Florence.

In the time of Aquinas and the centuries that followed such an attitude was not to be found.

Really? All of the books about the period that I have read have said to the contrary. Aquinas was translated into Greek and a number of Eastern theologians liked him but they were looked down on for it. Many of these same types that liked Aquinas joined the Latin Church soon after the Council of Florence.

St. Gennadius Scholarius, a firm opponent of the union and disciple of St. Mark Eugenikos, was one of the chief advocates for the usefulness of Aquinas.

« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 11:45:32 AM by Iconodule »

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

In the time of Aquinas and the centuries that followed such an attitude was not to be found.

Really? All of the books about the period that I have read have said to the contrary. Aquinas was translated into Greek and a number of Eastern theologians liked him but they were looked down on for it. Many of these same types that liked Aquinas joined the Latin Church soon after the Council of Florence.

St. Gennadius Scholarius, a firm opponent of the union and disciple of St. Mark Eugenikos, was one of the chief advocates for the usefulness of Aquinas.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't St. Gennadius pro-Union at the time of Florence? Do any of his pro-Aquinas sentiments come from writings after his "conversion" to anti-unionism?

« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 12:18:11 PM by Ioannis Climacus »

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

In the time of Aquinas and the centuries that followed such an attitude was not to be found.

Really? All of the books about the period that I have read have said to the contrary. Aquinas was translated into Greek and a number of Eastern theologians liked him but they were looked down on for it. Many of these same types that liked Aquinas joined the Latin Church soon after the Council of Florence.

St. Gennadius Scholarius, a firm opponent of the union and disciple of St. Mark Eugenikos, was one of the chief advocates for the usefulness of Aquinas.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't St. Gennadius pro-Union at the time of Florence? Do any of his pro-Aquinas sentiments come from writings after his "conversion" to the anti-unionism?